nick11a wrote:Using them for west of Dover MidTOWN Direct service (not enough demand yet for this, forget that as well).

With the ALP45s, it's already possible, so why not extend a few current peak Dover trains to Mt. Olive or Hopatcong as a trial?

They certainly could, but the ridership isn't all that much west of Dover to warrant it. Remember, much of the cars parked at Mount Arlington Train Station are bus riders, not train riders. However, if NJT wanted to create a jump in the train ridership there, this would be the way to do it.... along with adding more trains. As for the other stations west of Dover, they get even less ridership.

jackintosh11 wrote:Why not redistribute service with some trains that go to NYP rerouted to hoboken and diesel trains go to NYP with dual modes?

Because NJT wants people to ride to New York on their trains and pay them the New York fare and not pass that money over to PATH or the ferries. Besides that, they have an established clientele on the electric lines that go to New York already. The majority of these electric trains run to New York. Rerouting trains to Hoboken would alienate some of their passengers as they don't want to go to Hoboken.... and at Hoboken, they are getting to NYC by other means and not paying NJT the NYC fare.

The 45s seem to be quite present on the Newark end, by this I mean down the NEC and on conventional NJCL Long Branch trains. Clearly NJT is using them to sideline the ALP46Os and give them a onceover.. Remember those units are sixteen years old in the case of some units, they need the assistance.

Now, what I find impressive is this.. There have been three major passenger locomotive power introductions in recent years, one is the ACS64 electric for Amtrak, another is the HSP46 diesel for the MBTA, and the last is the ALP45. Whats really impressive is that the ALP45 is technically both an ACS64 and HSP46 in one but has had less teething troubles than both, im not holding the MMC snafu against them because that wasnt their fault, some bonehead didnt elect to move them.. Which in the case of those units, makes it even more impressive that they work as well as they do.

ACeInTheHole wrote:The 45s seem to be quite present on the Newark end, by this I mean down the NEC and on conventional NJCL Long Branch trains. Clearly NJT is using them to sideline the ALP46Os and give them a onceover.. Remember those units are sixteen years old in the case of some units, they need the assistance.

Now, what I find impressive is this.. There have been three major passenger locomotive power introductions in recent years, one is the ACS64 electric for Amtrak, another is the HSP46 diesel for the MBTA, and the last is the ALP45. Whats really impressive is that the ALP45 is technically both an ACS64 and HSP46 in one but has had less teething troubles than both, im not holding the MMC snafu against them because that wasnt their fault, some bonehead didnt elect to move them.. Which in the case of those units, makes it even more impressive that they work as well as they do.

Good point. When the PL42ACs arrived, there were years of problems.... then they got them to work right. When the second generation of ALP46s arrived, there were a fair amount of problems with them for a few months.... then they got it right.

Granted, the PL42ACs were built by Alstom, but perhaps lessons learned with new technologies helped pave the way for the ALP45s o work right? Also, as I recall the ALP45s were phased in slowly. They actually did a lot of their teething on the Gladstone Branch post-Sandy IIRC.

jackintosh11 wrote:Why not redistribute service with some trains that go to NYP rerouted to hoboken and diesel trains go to NYP with dual modes?

The way to really do this is to take two electric sets that start at MSU in the morning and replace the locomotives with the ALP45s and start them at Dover or somewhere earlier. Then run them as the same usual way the current electrics do with the last oubound trip going out beyond MSU to wherever they started in the morning. That would give you a shot at taking some extra passengers between Dover and MSU (mostly at Wayne maybe?) directly into NY. The problem is that there are not enough customers at these stations as of now which is why they are cutting the last train with the fare increase. You cannot (or at least should not) simultaneously cut two of the current Bontoon diesel trains because there are people who need to go into Hoboken. This is the "nobody is worse off" plan.

If you are OK making some people worse off, then the right thing to do is the above, but express the two sets through Montclair (MSU and Bay Street only before Newark) and then add two locals into Hoboken (they will need the right connections at Broad Street for NYC). You will also cut the two Bontoon diesels. With an express into NYC you have a shot of taking the bus riders from Wayne and beyond to use the train, but with locals that will never happen. Then you actually have a shot at increasing the ridership west of MSU (and hopefully the revenue). The reason why the Hudson line on MetroNorth is well used between Croton and Poughkeepsie are the express trains (and the lack of a parallel 8 lane highway). Without the expresses people will definitely not come, but with current numbers of passengers justifying the expresses is impossible.

ACeInTheHole wrote:
Now, what I find impressive is this.. There have been three major passenger locomotive power introductions in recent years, one is the ACS64 electric for Amtrak, another is the HSP46 diesel for the MBTA, and the last is the ALP45. Whats really impressive is that the ALP45 is technically both an ACS64 and HSP46 in one but has had less teething troubles than both, im not holding the MMC snafu against them because that wasnt their fault, some bonehead didnt elect to move them.. Which in the case of those units, makes it even more impressive that they work as well as they do.

ALP45s have zero in common with the HSP46.

I have not seen anything yet regarding the ALP45s being good for 100 yet. I still hear people in penn tell the engineers what they have back there. Maybe I am wrong. I def have not heard anything about them going to 125 which they were sort of designed to do. They are gonna need that when the raceway project is completed.

You missed my point with the HSP46 reference, notice how i said HSP46 and then said diesel. I was implying that it is a diesel, and an electric, two seperate, alternate sources of power, in one.. But yet has had less teething troubles than the HSP46 and ACS64. I was aiming for the basic principle.

ACeInTheHole wrote:
Now, what I find impressive is this.. There have been three major passenger locomotive power introductions in recent years, one is the ACS64 electric for Amtrak, another is the HSP46 diesel for the MBTA, and the last is the ALP45. Whats really impressive is that the ALP45 is technically both an ACS64 and HSP46 in one but has had less teething troubles than both, im not holding the MMC snafu against them because that wasnt their fault, some bonehead didnt elect to move them.. Which in the case of those units, makes it even more impressive that they work as well as they do.

ALP45s have zero in common with the HSP46.

I have not seen anything yet regarding the ALP45s being good for 100 yet. I still hear people in penn tell the engineers what they have back there. Maybe I am wrong. I def have not heard anything about them going to 125 which they were sort of designed to do. They are gonna need that when the raceway project is completed.

Not even the 46s are good for 125 yet lol. I believe the 45s are still capped at 90. Haven't ridden on a 45 powered set on the NEC that has topped that speed.

46A and the MLVs were tested and approved by the FRA for 125mph operation as per their design spec. The timetables dont list such speeds so they cannot travel them legally at the moment until local testing is completed. I do believe the 46A along with the 45 were delivered with 125mph gearing and the associated high speed 9 aspect cab signal + acses systems.

ApproachMedium wrote:46A and the MLVs were tested and approved by the FRA for 125mph operation as per their design spec. The timetables dont list such speeds so they cannot travel them legally at the moment until local testing is completed. I do believe the 46A along with the 45 were delivered with 125mph gearing and the associated high speed 9 aspect cab signal + acses systems.

ApproachMedium wrote:46A and the MLVs were tested and approved by the FRA for 125mph operation as per their design spec. The timetables dont list such speeds so they cannot travel them legally at the moment until local testing is completed. I do believe the 46A along with the 45 were delivered with 125mph gearing and the associated high speed 9 aspect cab signal + acses systems.

Stop signal is not considered part of the CSS codes, since its not something that is provided by the CSS system, instead its provided by ACSES via transponder distance data and the lack of a radio release present. it is an aspect that will show on any ADU that carries both CSS+ACSES.

ApproachMedium wrote:46A and the MLVs were tested and approved by the FRA for 125mph operation as per their design spec. The timetables dont list such speeds so they cannot travel them legally at the moment until local testing is completed. I do believe the 46A along with the 45 were delivered with 125mph gearing and the associated high speed 9 aspect cab signal + acses systems.

Stop signal is not considered part of the CSS codes, since its not something that is provided by the CSS system, instead its provided by ACSES via transponder distance data and the lack of a radio release present. it is an aspect that will show on any ADU that carries both CSS+ACSES.

Thank you sir. It is neat to see how things change/evolve over the years.

Authorization to enter into a sole source Contract No. 16-603 with Foley-Caterpillar,
Inc. of Piscataway, New Jersey to provide materials and services for the top deck
overhaul on 70 Caterpillar engines (2 per locomotive) in an amount not to exceed
$8,406,000, plus five percent for contingencies, subject to the availability of funds.

Before any speculation starts, I hear that this is normal, as CAT recommends an overhaul every 5-7 years on their high speed diesels.

It is, and here my friends is where all of this Tier 4, 4 stroke junk comes to play as being extremely costly to railroads. The new Cummins and the cat engines in the F125 and Siemens charger recommend every 4 years. Typical EMD engines go 10+ years before top deck overhauls by comparison.

Basically everything on the top of the engine gets replaced/overhauled down to the piston tops. Anything and everything above that is removed inspected and replaced or repaired. It takes a long time to do and is very costly because it removes the engine from service for a long period of time.